<i>What Are Entrepreneurial Dietitians Charging?</i> The Consulting Dietitians Network National Fee Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To respond to a need to develop a national fee guideline, the Consulting Dietitians Network conducted a membership fee survey. A questionnaire requesting fee information for various nutrition consulting services was distributed to members as an insert with the Consulting Dietitians Network quarterly newsletter and by electronic mail. The response rate was 38.4% (98 respondents) and most respondents (74.5%) had urban practices. The most frequently charged fees (mode) for individual counselling ($75/hour), industry and commercial firm consultations ($150/hour), group facilitation ($150/hour), and media consultations ($150/article) were highest in the region of Ontario, Quebec, and the Atlantic provinces. The most frequently charged fees (mode) for home visits ($100/hour), writing for newspapers ($250/hour), and menu reviews ($60/hour) were highest in the region of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The minimum and maximum fees were significantly different for the three regions (Ontario, Quebec, and the Atlantic provinces; Manitoba and Saskatchewan; and Alberta, British Columbia, and Yukon Territory) studied for initial client consultations, industry and commercial firm consultations, and menu reviews (p<0.05). For home visits, teaching in an institution, seminar presentations, group facilitation, media consultations, and writing media articles, the differences in the minimum and maximum fees charged were highly significant (p<0.001). Entrepreneurial dietitians may use these data as a reference to establish and negotiate consultation fees.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".